Say you're correct - what the **** is the DCCC doing, then? "Democrats refuse to show up if their nominees aren't sufficiently liberal, guess we better make sure all the progressives stay out so we...lose more?"

The strategy where the Democrats put up more liberal candidates?

DCCC thinks that to win they need to find moderate candidates that can draw in some NeverTrumper votes and then bank on their base hating Trump so much that they'll vote for anybody that doesn't support Trump or those who do.

That might actually work but it doesn't mean that it reflects exactly what the people want. It only reflects a strategy that works at getting anti-Trump politicians elected.

Maybe they just aren't that progressive and that's why they don't want super progressive candidates?

People just support the candidates they prefer. If yours keep losing they need to be better, not just handed power without getting the votes.

They need to pull them up by their bootstraps. If the candidates that the DCCC supports by giving them funding, party infrastructure, voter rolls and connections wins that's just because they're better.

Or just keep whining about people not letting you win. The people who get party support earn it.

This is true. Also why presume that the party wants to win majorities in congress or the presidency? Not only is fundraising fine when the GOP is in power, most of these people are wealthy and are better off themselves this way.

This really is incredible coming from a liberal. How can you possibly believe in things like the power of white supremacy (you do, right?) while also holding this insane belief that the DCCC-backed candidate could only have possibly earned such support by being better, and refusing to believe that they benefit from an entrenched power structure?

Huehue's post nailed it.

They used pretty much this exact strategy with Doug Jones, and him just barely winning probably convinced them that it's the right strategy because they're ignoring all the other factors from that race. They love allowing themselves to be pulled further and further right.

The only reason Max might identify as "liberal" is because "country club Republican" is frowned upon in his social circles. He ain't on our team.

Better hope that every Republican up for office in a red state is a pedophile I guess.

I mean, expand that to general sexual deviant and you'll make good money on that bet.

John Stuart Mill, nah, Edmund Burkeish kind of liberal. I shouldn't say this because it's too complimentary, but with the French screen names and all I think of Alex De Tocqueville.

No I’m saying to change power structures you’re going to have to do a lot better... like civil rights leaders. You’re not their intellectual offspring if you expect to be given stuff and not earn everything.

Wow, this is another "holy **** did he really say that" response. Should black people have had to ****ing "earn" their rights in the 1960s? Did they not deserve to be "given" such things without facing down water cannons and dogs and ****? What the ****???

Some jaw-dropping takes here

Seems like part of being the new Civil Rights leaders (lawl) is, you know, reporting about the unfairness in the system, you know, like those Civil Rights leaders did. The people who opposed the the Civil Rights movement called it whining though

Lol.. the civil rights struggle was about black people and others earning rights. Like thats what actually happened and it was really difficult.

Atleast that’s what civil rights leaders still alive seem to think. Maybe you can go whitesplain to them what actually happened.

Probably should have to own property, pay enough taxes, and pass a literacy test too Citoyen actif.

And implicit in any discussion of the civil rights era with non-white supremacists is the acknowledgement that it shouldn't have had to be that way, so it's pretty ****ing bizarre you bring that up like "sorry, if you want the DCCC to not rig against your candidates I guess you need to go take to the streets".

When I brought up white supremacy to begin with, btw, I didn't mean the civil rights era. I meant how conservatives today say "oh, you're a black person with a net worth that's a fraction of the average white person? Guess you should have bootstrapped harder". Your logic is exactly the same, as Huehue pointed out: "oh, you're a progressive candidate who failed to overcome the party endorsing a Republican-lite and giving them tons of money? Guess they were the better candidate, try harder next time"

It's weird to talk of having to earn civil rights (or human rights) when someone should automatically have them by virtue of being a citizen or human.

Or just win primaries and elections and realize you need to do better if you dont? It seems more likely that you suck than Obama got them to rig it for him. But getting you to learn that is probably as difficult as getting civil rights from racists.

I'm just going by your words here dude

...said completely unironically in defense of the party shelling out endorsements and money in primaries to your preferred candidates before any votes are cast. An actual level playing field = "handed power without getting the votes", hahahaha ohhhh wow

When your competition juices and bribes the refs, just play better.

Guys, just win primaries that are already decided by superdelegates before they begin, it's so simple.